Arguments For and Against The FCC Set-Top Box Proposal

Today the FCC will be holding a hearing to vote on a
proposal to open up the set-top box market. Changes could occur by the end of
2016.

As we predicted back in January, many on both sides of this heated issue have waded into the fray,
vocalizing their support or expressing opposition for the proposal.

Here, we provide a look at the intense debate being made by technology and
TV industry experts. Will the STB ultimately become unlocked?

For

“This proposal could actually make that set-top box an
interesting product … something has to change. Because none of the options on
offer have proved so far to be the perfect solution; in fact, it often feels
like a stopgap. Apps, for example, aren't necessarily the greatest solution for
video streaming, since they're really just aggregating lots of little buckets
into the same place, rather than creating one great menu of all your options.”

“If the industry had its way, we would still be renting
phones from the old Ma Bell … requiring cable-TV systems to make room for
competing devices should similarly lead to a boom in new types of services and
technologies … the F.C.C. should move as quickly as possible. Americans have
waited long enough for more and better choices than the cable box.”

“Despite much of
what’s been written about the FCC’s open set-top box proposal and its potential
impact on minority-led channels and programmers, this issue is not an issue
about minorities …

An open system could mean that two guys in their basement
could create a new set-top software model that makes it easier for anyone to
launch a new channel, and out of those new channels, a few smart people are
going to get it right … That is the promise of innovation. No promise of
winning, but a shot to try on a more even playing field. This is precisely why
the FCC, against a strong tide of pay-TV systems, should move forward with its
set-top box proposal.”

“We agree with the Consumer Video Choice Coalition that huge yearly savings for
consumers could result from an opening of this market. But beyond this, we
believe the Commission has an opportunity to improve consumer access to local
program information as a result of the proposal, and to strengthen and
revitalize local programming across the United States … PEG organizations are
systematically prevented from providing program guide metadata by cable
providers which control access to the navigation systems on their set-top boxes
… We look forward to the NPRM so that Americans can discover local program
information that matters to their lives.”

“In my opinion, this is the best decision that the FCC has
made to increase minority diversity in media content distribution since the
Commission championed the tax certificate which allowed for the increase in
minority ownership of media properties … If you have a good program idea, some
financing and access to the Internet, you can find your audience. But your
audience can only find you if they have a modem or a set-top box or software
that lets them know you are there and gives them access to your programs
unconstrained by the network gatekeeper.”

Against

“If the FCC truly believes it must ‘do something’ to
accelerate the demise of the set-top box, it should simply accelerate the
ongoing shift from set-top boxes to video apps. An apps-based approach to
set-top box regulation would leverage existing, industry-wide standards to
provide cable and satellite video consumers with the same type of access to
video programming that is offered by over the top video services like YouTube
and that consumers already love.”

"[The proposal] would let tech companies raid [licensing] agreements,
ignore their terms, or pile on layers of new advertisements of their own. That
would further devalue diverse programming and make it harder for networks
serving communities of color to find an audience and survive.

Given the significant concerns regarding these proposed
rules, and the rapid innovation occurring in the marketplace, it would be
unwise to implement sweeping changes to the system currently in place. We urge
the FCC to abandon these proposed new rules and protect viewer choice and
diverse programming for all communities.”

“The FCC should not upset this process by unfairly
supporting a proposal that does not have the burden of paying to keep the
industry working well for our nation. By the FCC’s support of the ‘Allvid’
proposal the burden of cost that would be forced on MVPDs would be
counterproductive to the business it is intended to grow. Independent and
minority networks, who are already last in line, would simply get no resources,
no opportunity, and no path to the audiences we serve.”

“While I support the objective of enabling competition and innovation in the
market for set-top boxes, any new FCC rules in this area must not harm the
production and distribution of video content. The FCC’s rules should not allow
third-parties to do more with programming content than has been done through
negotiated arrangements between content owners and their partners.”

–Sen.
Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), the ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee

“The Chairman’s approach creates a gaping hole in consumer
privacy where none exists today, and leaves our personal viewing histories at
the mercy of vast businesses built almost entirely on mining, exploiting, and
profiling our personal data. It would be the biggest step backwards for
consumer privacy ever enacted by the FCC. This makes absolutely no sense,
especially when cable and satellite providers are already covered by strict
statutory privacy protections and a robust “apps” solution is already working
in the marketplace to deliver video to hundreds of millions of viewers and
devices without compromising our privacy at all.”

“Too many questions remain, and too much is at stake, to
plow ahead and let Google’s proposal drastically impact an already competitive
and wildly innovative marketplace. It seems way too early for the FCC to be
picking the winners and losers in this debate ... When all the misinformation is
cleared away, the apps approach is the best way to achieve our common goal of
providing an alternative to the leased set-top box model that ensures privacy
rules are followed and that minority voices are heard.”